Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29000 Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 62 of 2025 Applicant :- Saheb Ram @ Sadhu (Died) Thru. Lr S 1/1 Smt. Tulsi Pati(Dead) And 4 Others Opposite Party :- Ram Charitra (Died) Thru. 1/1 Ram Newas And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Mani Tripathi,Syed Asaghar Mehdi Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the review-applicant and Sri Syed Ahamad Mehdi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. Instant review application has been filed praying for review of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court. 3. By the said order, the second appeal filed by the learned counsel for the appellant had been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the review-applicant has stated that it has been observed in paragraphs 26 & 27 of the judgment passed by this Court that certified copies of the documents, which were the plaint and the written statement of Suit No. 106 of 1989 were filed before the learned trial Court in the year 1998 but the supplementary affidavit has been filed before this Court in the year 2019 contending that the said written statement had never been filed in the said suit by Smt. Kutta. Also, this Court has observed that the records of Original Suit No. 106 of 1989 had gone missing and could only be traced out after herculean efforts being made by the appellant and after various complaints having been submitted but there is nothing on record to indicate that when the certified copies of the said documents were filed before the learned trial court on 10.11.1998 as to what prevented the appellant from going through the file of the Original Suit No.106 of 1989 or for filing of a rebuttal thereof. 5. Learned counsel for the review-applicant states that he had applied for Nakal Sawaal through his application dated 30.10.2018, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the review application which has been replied to only on 03.04.2019, a copy of which is part of annexure 2 to the review application by contending that the 'Basta' is not traceable. It is thus contended that once the 'Basta' was not traceable consequently, it cannot be said that any suit had been filed in which Smt. Kutta had put in appearance and had filed her written statement and non tracing out of the 'Basta' would itself be indicative of the fact that no suit has in fact been filed by the parties. 6. It is also contended that as no suit was filed consequently, there would not be any occasion for Smt. Kutta to have filed written statement and consequently, in the absence of any suit or written statement and the documents that were filed by respondents herein before the learned trial Court were fake and fictitious and consequently, any judgment which has been obtained by fraud or forgery would be a nullity. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry and Ors Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors- 2007 (4) SCC 211. 7. The aforesaid ground as urged by the learned counsel for the review-applicant is found to be patently fallacious. 8. The reason is that in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this Court dated 16.04.2025 it has specifically been indicated that the documents that were filed by the defendants in the original suit indicated that Smt. Kutta had categorically admitted execution of the sale deed in question. Incidentally it was only in the affidavit which has been filed before this Court in the year 2019 in the second appeal which pertains to the year 2009, which was filed in order to indicate that the documents themselves were not available. 9. By means of the instant review application, the Nakal Sawaal dated 30.10.2018 and the reply dated 03.04.2019 indicating that the 'Basta' has not been found, has been filed to indicate that the efforts were made all along to trace out the records. The Nakal Sawal is itself of October, 2018 and the reply thereto is that the Basta is not traceable. No judgment has been placed before this Court to indicate that in case the 'Basta' is not traceable, the same would be indicative of no suit having been filed. The co-relation between 'Basta' being not traceable and filing of suit has also not been indicated. 10. Thus, the fact of the matter would remain that despite the documents having been filed in the year 1998 by the defendants, no efforts were made by Smt. Kutta or her legal heirs to trace out the records and thus it would be too late in the day to allege on the basis of documents, which also not indicate of the said suit not having been filed, to contend that the said documents were forged or fictitious. 11. Thus, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the review application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.5.2025/Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench